4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered, Bryan Kohberger Arrested, Moscow, Nov 2022 #82

Status
Not open for further replies.

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
2,083
Reaction score
15,698
I admit to never having heard of a family filing a motion for the death penalty. I have been under the impression that decision was for the prosecutor to make- I honestly don't understand the family doing that. It seems like over-reach to me: Don't they trust the prosecutor?
It was my impression a DA might talk with a victim's family but the choice to pursue the DP was the DA's, not the family's. The punishment applied in a criminal case, whatever it is, is applied on behalf of the state or society, not on behalf of the family.

For a variety of reasons (reasons that I know can't be debated here) there is more sentiment against the DP than there used to be. I wonder if the families who want death in this case are worried about that. After all, DA's are elected.
JMO
 

Boxer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2017
Messages
8,784
Reaction score
82,247
I've been thinking about this since you posted this hours ago.

IMO, media has evolved from those early fact-finding duties and it's now become a business that's dependent on digital clicks and read through rates to survive. It's no longer about the 6:00 news. It's about 24-hour news cycles that demand attention, and expecting journalists to remain fidelitous to their traditional mission would be asking them to ignore contemporary pressures. That's unrealistic. So until journalistic standards can be re-designed to operate cohesively with the judicial system without compromising fairness, dignity, and the core tenets of presumption of innocence, gag order should stay.

I also don't agree that the media is meant to be the watchdog. The media is meant to inform the public and by default, becomes the watchdog in order to carry out that duty. But the risks and benefits of their role must also be measured, particularly in a case that hasn't just garnered public attention, but also public opinion, and strong, passionate opinion at that. It's the latter that could potentially pose a fatal blow to justice. Another reason the gag order should stay.

MOO.
MOO journalist are the people's detectives. Not perfect by any means, but if allowed all power conducts it's agenda in secrecy.

This gag orger is in the edge between a fair trial for BK and safety for witnesses apparently on one side and the public's wish and right to know what is going on.
Unless BK pleads out, the public will know what went on and is going on at the trial, and all parts can be scrutinized.
MOO the gag order amounts to a delay as the actions of the court are public, but have the specific content redacted.
 
Last edited:

Twistinginthewind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
19,041
I admit to never having heard of a family filing a motion for the death penalty. I have been under the impression that decision was for the prosecutor to make- I honestly don't understand the family doing that. It seems like over-reach to me: Don't they trust the prosecutor?
Reposting this from a few weeks ago, which is all I've seen in MSM about the Goncalves and Mogen families re the death penalty. I think there may be some wording that could be misleading, such as "seek", but the thrust is the same, IMO. I think they just want to make their wishes known and go on the record, not that they don't trust the prosecutor. JMO.

(BBM):

"Two of the Idaho quadruple murder victims' families will seek the death penalty for the college students' alleged killer, an attorney has said.

Bryan Kohberger, 28, is accused of murdering Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin on November 13, 2022. He stayed silent when asked to give a plea at a hearing last week.

They are filing notices indicating their desire to seek capital punishment during the trial, reports NewsNation.

Shanon Gray, the Goncalves family’s attorney told NewsNation: 'We spoke with the prosecutor on the case, Mr. Thompson. He’s going to meet with all the families individually, and then make a decision based on that.

'So, the Goncalves family obviously supports the death penalty in this case.' "


Idaho victims' families will seek death penalty for accused Kohberger
 

di anna

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
223
Reaction score
1,230
Are gag orders on high profile cases becoming more prolific? With the media on a feeding frenzy, how is the public able to discern what a reputable source is for news? If they even care. Not everyone has a college education and so many people don't have a clue as to where to get reliable information.
 

jepop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2023
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
13,382
MOO journalist are the people's detectives. Not perfect by any means, but if allowed all power conducts it's agenda in secrecy.

This gag orger is in the edge between a fair trial for BK and safety for witnesses apparently on one side and the public's wish and right to know what is going on.
Unless BK pleads out, the public will know what went on and is going on at the trial, and all parts can be scrutinized.
MOO the gag order amounts to a delay as the actions of the court are public, but have the specific content redacted.
Good points and I agree. It amounts to a delay in revealing actual content. The trial will be reported. It makes sense to me but naturally certain sectors of the media are upset about it. Moo

EBM spelling
 

jepop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2023
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
13,382
That second statement you quoted made me laugh. I can think of several cases where unfettered access failed to improve the quality or accuracy of their reporting one iota. At least IMO. And I'm sure we can think of cases where it's pretty clear that free access may have affected the outcome in a negative way. As much as I would like to see the trial, I'm also concerned the judge may lose his mind, knowing that everyone is watching and second-guessing his decisions. Everyone's mileage may vary.

I know media obsession with a story is nothing new but I wish it didn't happen. The other day, I thought how refreshing it would be if the media just said "nothing new today, but we're still on the case" and instead used their time to give more than 2 paragraphs to a missing or murdered child whose case isn't getting any attention because they are all busy trying to wring one new fact out of their unidentified sources.
"As much as I would like to see the trial, I'm also concerned the judge may lose his mind, knowing that everyone is watching and second-guessing his decisions. Everyone's mileage may vary"

Respectfully quoting from your post above:
I may be misunderstanding (?), but I think part of the rationale behind the gag order is to ensure as far as possible a fair trial. If and when it comes time for trial, I'm assuming it will be covered in the usual fashion, wite the usual regulations in place for the press, protecting identities of jurors and so forth? Such as we saw in the Murdaugh and Leticia Stauch trials?

I agree fully that free access does not necessarily go hand in hand with more accurate reporting! Look at the case of NN and XK's parent as an eg. The interview where (to my mind) she was shamefully exploited and then the Court minutes released re potential conflict of interest where we learnt that AT had very little if any direct contact with her as client. There was free access when NN did this interview. Moo.
 

ArianeEmory

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
7,044
Are gag orders on high profile cases becoming more prolific? With the media on a feeding frenzy, how is the public able to discern what a reputable source is for news? If they even care. Not everyone has a college education and so many people don't have a clue as to where to get reliable information.

I do feel like I’m seeing more gag orders, but it just could be that my distracted mind gets pulled harder to the cases that are already high profile.

As for news—there is such a thing as media literacy and it is still possible to learn how to evaluate the veracity of sources, from “random social media talking head” to “long-lived print newspaper”. The problem is, now that (some) people have been taught the truth is whatever their gut tells them it is, I don’t see how we ever get the media literacy genie back in the bottle. I’m sure some people reading this post believe that all the “mainstream” media sources on the case are making things up for clicks.
 

jepop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2023
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
13,382
I do feel like I’m seeing more gag orders, but it just could be that my distracted mind gets pulled harder to the cases that are already high profile.

As for news—there is such a thing as media literacy and it is still possible to learn how to evaluate the veracity of sources, from “random social media talking head” to “long-lived print newspaper”. The problem is, now that (some) people have been taught the truth is whatever their gut tells them it is, I don’t see how we ever get the media literacy genie back in the bottle. I’m sure some people reading this post believe that all the “mainstream” media sources on the case are making things up for clicks.
I think media literacy is an important concept, on a par with critical thinking/evaluation. It's just a shame and very tiring to always be on the alert for what is and is not accurate reporting. The way I deal with this at present as regards this case is to compare actual court docs with how various outlets report on them. But this is almost a full time job in my leisure time! Like most people, Imo, I just want accurate, balanced reporting without having to resort to constant double checking, but it's hard to know when to apply the grain of salt principle or not with some media. Moo
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
10,516
Reaction score
77,698
I admit to never having heard of a family filing a motion for the death penalty. I have been under the impression that decision was for the prosecutor to make- I honestly don't understand the family doing that. It seems like over-reach to me: Don't they trust the prosecutor?

They have not filed yet, they simply have no reason to file until they know the prosecutor's decision. To me, it makes no sense to file the Motion before knowing the decision. If they file the Motion and then the prosecutor seeks the DP, the Motion would have to be dismissed which seems like a waste of time.

The families will hear his decision before it hits the media, so what I believe is if we do not hear of the prosecutor's decision but find out the 2 families filed the Motion, then we know the prosecutor refused to file for the DP.

Right now, we have 2 families that want the DP and 1 that wants LWOP. We don't know what Ethan's family wants but if they do want the DP then I think the prosecutor will go for it.

But what if Ethan's family wants LWOP? Then you have 2 for the DP and 2 against it. WOW!

The elected lead Prosecutor, Bill Thompson, has 60 days from Kohberger’s plea to make a determination.

Bill Thompson
1686150166202.png
The elected Prosecuting Attorney defends or prosecutes actions, applications, or motions in the District Court or Magistrate's division in which the People, the State or the County is a party. Along with the Sheriff, the Prosecutor functions as the chief law enforcement officer in Latah County. The Prosecuting Attorney is also the legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners, as well as other elected officials and appointed boards and commissions of the county.

 
Last edited:

Sjöberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
326
Reaction score
2,940
So what I believe is if we do not hear of the prosecutor's decision but find out the 2 families filed the Motion, then we know the prosecutor refused to file for the DP.
I like the theory!

In practice, I think the Goncalves family will file the Motion no matter what the prosecutor does or does not. So far they also seem to be heavily representing and/or influencing the Mogen family, too, so I would not think that it means anything other than the respective people being the early stages of grief, even if both families file the Motion. Considering the previous actions of the family, such as leaking information and considering suing the LE, I don't think their actions are too likely to be fully logical here.
 

maskedwoman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
1,493
Reaction score
6,097
"As much as I would like to see the trial, I'm also concerned the judge may lose his mind, knowing that everyone is watching and second-guessing his decisions. Everyone's mileage may vary"

Respectfully quoting from your post above:
I may be misunderstanding (?), but I think part of the rationale behind the gag order is to ensure as far as possible a fair trial. If and when it comes time for trial, I'm assuming it will be covered in the usual fashion, wite the usual regulations in place for the press, protecting identities of jurors and so forth? Such as we saw in the Murdaugh and Leticia Stauch trials?

I agree fully that free access does not necessarily go hand in hand with more accurate reporting! Look at the case of NN and XK's parent as an eg. The interview where (to my mind) she was shamefully exploited and then the Court minutes released re potential conflict of interest where we learnt that AT had very little if any direct contact with her as client. There was free access when NN did this interview. Moo.
I agree with everything you said. I was thinking of Judge Ito and Judge Perry, both of whom were later determined to have made some poor decisions. Maybe they would have made those same mistakes under normal circumstances, although we'll never know, but they were later blamed on the pressure of having the trials televised. I did worry about the Murtaugh trial, which thankfully ended well. I did not follow the Stauch trial. My fingers are firmly crossed that this trial will be more Murtaugh than Simpson or Anthony.
 

ilovewings

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
7,992
Reaction score
60,300
They have not filed yet, they simply have no reason to file until they know the prosecutor's decision. To me, it makes no sense to file the Motion before knowing the decision. If they file the Motion and then the prosecutor seeks the DP, the Motion would have to be dismissed which seems like a waste of time.

The families will hear his decision before it hits the media, so what I believe is if we do not hear of the prosecutor's decision but find out the 2 families filed the Motion, then we know the prosecutor refused to file for the DP.

Right now, we have 2 families that want the DP and 1 that wants LWOP. We don't know what Ethan's family wants but if they do want the DP then I think the prosecutor will go for it.

But what if Ethan's family wants LWOP? Then you have 2 for the DP and 2 against it. WOW!

The elected lead Prosecutor, Bill Thompson, has 60 days from Kohberger’s plea to make a determination.

Bill Thompson
View attachment 427227
The elected Prosecuting Attorney defends or prosecutes actions, applications, or motions in the District Court or Magistrate's division in which the People, the State or the County is a party. Along with the Sheriff, the Prosecutor functions as the chief law enforcement officer in Latah County. The Prosecuting Attorney is also the legal counsel for the Board of County Commissioners, as well as other elected officials and appointed boards and commissions of the county.


My thought is this: I don't care when the families file a motion for a DP (if they do)- in my opinion it is over-reach. They need to express their feelings to the prosecutor, but at the end of the day it is the prosecutor's decision (and many many things go into such a decision) and his alone. The prosecutor may be swayed by the family and believe the DP is the right decision: on the other hand he may have reasons not to file the D.P. D.P. cases are harder to win - the defendant seems to get the benefit of the doubt in so many circumstances in a trial--- you have to have almost a perfect case to get the D.P.-
 

Cool Cats

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
10,516
Reaction score
77,698
I like the theory!

In practice, I think the Goncalves family will file the Motion no matter what the prosecutor does or does not. So far they also seem to be heavily representing and/or influencing the Mogen family, too, so I would not think that it means anything other than the respective people being the early stages of grief, even if both families file the Motion. Considering the previous actions of the family, such as leaking information and considering suing the LE, I don't think their actions are too likely to be fully logical here.

When you speculate that the Goncalves family might file the Motion even if the prosecutor decides to seek the DP, I think it maybe could have to do with:

1.) Getting their point of view directly into the court record.

2.) Getting their reasons for wanting the DP out to the public, detailed reasons that the public doesn't hear about.

3.) If BK were to be convicted and then have his 2nd trial to determine the jury's verdict on DP sentencing,
maybe the jury could actually read this Motion.
 

U.N. Known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
292
Reaction score
2,438
Respectfully. His story needs to end.
That he might have "some chance to get out" sent chills up my spine.
The main benefit is/should be to society that this monster NEVER be allowed out to kill again however the state can achieve that.
MOO
If he's guilty, then yes, but I wasn't really talking about the affect of a plea deal on society, but on whether it would make sense for this particular defendant should agree to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the DP - for his own sake. (if that's offered).

Respectfully to anyone who has already made up his or her mind as to BK's guilty or innocence,I am not calling him not guilty, my personal questions and thoughts on the evidence aside, neither will I refer to him as guilty until or unless he pleads guilty or is found guilty. I have no desire to be on this jury, but I sure would love to see all of the available eveidence to form a fully informed opinion.
 

U.N. Known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
292
Reaction score
2,438

According to the gag order, as well as Kohberger’s attorneys, it is necessary to protect Kohberger’s right to a fair trial.

“If anything, the Gag Order prejudices Mr. Kohberger by depriving the public of quality information, creating a vacuum for rampant speculation online”
They're both right. The gag order is necessary to protect BK's right to a fair trial because there isn't quality information. The problem is that there are few, if any news outlets (MSM OR SM) that provide quality, strictly factual information. I'd be all for lifting the order if media outlets were held accountable for mixing their opinions in with fact. Many people cannot tell fact from opinion. The number of adult people who quote, "it was on TikTok" as evidence, proves that.
 

Chloegirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2023
Messages
272
Reaction score
2,306
I admit to never having heard of a family filing a motion for the death penalty. I have been under the impression that decision was for the prosecutor to make- I honestly don't understand the family doing that. It seems like over-reach to me: Don't they trust the prosecutor?


While I admit to not agreeing with their approach. I get it; they want to be legally on record requesting it. It is a bit untraditional. If it were my family there's a possibility I would want to know that I did everything I could. I'm sure no one will agree but I am opposed to the death penalty. Murder is murder. I understand this is not a popular opinion, especially in Idaho. I suppose I'm glad that they've made their feelings legally known despite disagreeing.
 

U.N. Known

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2023
Messages
292
Reaction score
2,438
I do feel like I’m seeing more gag orders, but it just could be that my distracted mind gets pulled harder to the cases that are already high profile.

As for news—there is such a thing as media literacy and it is still possible to learn how to evaluate the veracity of sources, from “random social media talking head” to “long-lived print newspaper”. The problem is, now that (some) people have been taught the truth is whatever their gut tells them it is, I don’t see how we ever get the media literacy genie back in the bottle. I’m sure some people reading this post believe that all the “mainstream” media sources on the case are making things up for clicks.
I teach HS to some incredibly bright students. We make them use sources. We teach them how to evaluate those sources. They know how to do that and some do it well--for formal writing. Then revert right back to SM for personal information. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard, "but it was on TikTok" with conviction as to the information's veracity even when I have evidence to the contrary.
 

jepop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2023
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
13,382
I agree with everything you said. I was thinking of Judge Ito and Judge Perry, both of whom were later determined to have made some poor decisions. Maybe they would have made those same mistakes under normal circumstances, although we'll never know, but they were later blamed on the pressure of having the trials televised. I did worry about the Murtaugh trial, which thankfully ended well. I did not follow the Stauch trial. My fingers are firmly crossed that this trial will be more Murtaugh than Simpson or Anthony.
Oh I see @maskedwoman, sorry I misunderstood! Yes, that is something to consider with televised trials. I think there should be very strict rules of protocol around them. I thought the Murdaugh and L.Stauch trial were both handled very well, the court seemed toi be well on top of things. So I hope lessons are being learn't from previous mistakes. I agree that no judge, jury or any court officials should be placed in situations where they feel under pressure. Moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top